|
 |
 |
155
|
(Only available to US-based businesses) |
|
When not being unplugged is a
crime...
|
|
'NigeCh' as our correspondent will be known on this
occasion, amongst others, in the interests of protecting the guilty, had
an interesting tale to tell, however short:
"I once was arrested, in France, for not having a self-draining cockpit, and
the boat got chained up - The French customs officers didn't care a hoot about the
Rumanian/Hungarian/British crew. We escaped, courtesy of the L'Aberwrach fishing fleet,
with bolt cutters and a bottle of Vodka from the bilge. There were 'northerlies'
blowing, so we went round the 'corner' and ended up in La Trinité-sur-Mer. (Sans 'dodgers')
The rest of the story is taboo because the boat is still a 'wanted' vessel
en la belle France libre...."
|
|
On a more serious note, a group of us had been
discussing the 'compensation culture' of the modern age and I had
mentioned the fact that many doctors will no longer stop to help victims
of traffic accidents, for fear of being sued for negligence in the event
of a death occurring.
'NigeCh', who seems to be drawn, unwittingly, into
more than his fair share of trouble, had another, less amusing tale to
tell, from the UK, of which he is a citizen:
|
|
"I went to court, as a witness to a road accident,
last year. Four months after the verdict, the insurance company of the
victim took me to court for 'gross dereliction of duty'.
All I had done was to watch a car go through a red traffic light and state the
fact to the police. Now I am 24,000 GBP the worse off, in lawyers fees, for ever having acted as a witness in the first place.
If I ever happen to find myself in the role of onlooker at an accident
again then, whenever that tomorrow comes, I'm going to play the three brass monkeys.
See nothing. Hear nothing. Say nothing.
That is sadder than sad but now reflects the state, not just of individuals but
of our sad country."
|
|
Not just in Britain is this a growing problem, we fear,
but in a great number of countries where the compensation culture has
managed to get a grip. 'Ambulance Chasers', as lawyers who specialise in
this kind of litigation are known, have convinced many members of the
public that it is not only their right, but their duty, to seek
compensation in any quarter whence it might be forthcoming. Shame.
|
We were rather pleased to hear, therefore, from Andrew Craig-Bennett that some things British are still considered to be
best...
|
|
Most maritime contracts such as voyage, time and demise charter parties, agreements for the sale and purchase of ships and for building ships, leases, marine mortgages, contracts for hull and machinery insurance and protection and indemnity insurance, salvage and towage agreements, etc., and indeed bills of lading, where the law of the port of delivery so permits, are drafted to specify English law either with the jurisdiction of the High Court or with arbitration in London.
Most collisions, and almost all salvage cases not carried out on Lloyds Form (which specifies English law and arbitration) are referred, by agreement between the parties, to the Jurisdiction of the High Court in London, although the collision may have occurred in the Pacific or the Mediterranean, and several of the more reputable Flags of Convenience, such as Liberia, hold their Formal Enquiries in London using English judges and barristers.
"Justice" is actually less important than certainty and consistency, in commercial law at least. That is the huge strength of the English legal system and that is why it is preferred for maritime law cases.
This may sound odd, but it is not. Here is why:
Under the English common law system, two parties can make an agreement, confident that the words they use have legally defined meanings, and that if there has been a case on a particular point that case will not be overturned next time.
Furthermore, in the event of a dispute the dispute can usually be settled by reference to the case law, and if not, and the case gos to trial, the published judgement can be consulted and is there for all to see. No monkey business or concessions to local interests.
Under the European civil law systems the idea is apparently to seek "justice", but the result is that decisions are all over the place and vary wildly from court to court and from day to day.
If you ever have to try it, you will find that this is alarmingly true.
Our thanks again, to Andrew Craig-Bennett for a straightforward explanation
of a complex question.
|
 |
|
|
|
